I would like to join with others who have expressed similar
remarks in expressing my appreciation to Chairman Hyde and also to the
ranking Democrat on this committee, John Conyers, for the leadership
that they both have provided during what has been, at often times, a
difficult process. I think they have both performed well, and I want
to thank them for it.

I have reviewed carefully the information that has been presented
to this committee by the independent counsel and by other witnesses
who have testified before the committee, and I have concluded that a
congressional response is required to the actions of the president.

The president made false statements concerning his reprehensible
conduct with a subordinate. He wrongfully took steps to delay
discovery of the truth. He has diminished his personal dignity and
that of the office of the presidency. He has brought the presidency
into disrepute and impaired the image of the president as a role model
for younger Americans.

The question we must now decide is whether to adopt a resolution
censuring and rebuking the president for these actions, or whether we
should adopt articles of impeachment directly toward his removal from
office. In deciding which of these alternatives is more appropriate,
I have carefully reviewed the historical precedents for the use of
both, in light of the facts which have been presented to this
committee, and I have concluded that a statement by the Congress,
formally censuring the rebuking the president for his conduct is more
appropriate in these circumstances.

Of particular value to me in this analysis was the most recent
congressional pronouncement on the proper use of the impeachment
power. It is found in the report issued on a broad bipartisan basis
by this committee in its 1974 proceeding in the Watergate inquiry.

That report concludes that the framers of the Constitution vested the
impeachment power in the House of Representatives with the intent that
it only be used to advance the national interest. It was designed to
remove from office a chief executive whose conduct threatens the
nation. Not all presidential misconduct, whether criminal or non-
criminal, justifies impeachment. To quote this committee's report,
"Only that misconduct which is seriously incompatible with either the
constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper
performance of the duties of the presidential office will justify a
use of the impeachment power."

This is the standard that we should apply today. It was applied
by our predecessors on this committee in 1974. It gives further
definition to our common understanding that overturning a national
election and removing a president from office is a drastic remedy to
be used only when the survival of our constitutional forum of
government is at stake. The facts now before this committee, which
arise from a personal relationship and the effort to conceal it,
simply do not arise to that standard. While the president's conduct
was reprehensible, it did not threaten the nation, it did not
undermine the constitutional form and principles of our government,
and it did not disable the proper performance of the constitutional
duties of the presidential office. It does not rise to the standard
for impeachment set by our predecessors in 1974.

It is equally clear that impeachment was never intended as a
punishment for misconduct by the chief executive. The Constitution,
in Article I, Section 3, specifically provides that the president can
be tried in the criminal courts, after he leaves office, for any
crimes that are committed during his presidential tenure. Since the
president is clearly subject to the criminal justice process, the rule
of law will be upheld, and the principle that no person, including the
president, is above the law, will be honored.

This president, I should note, is also subject to sanctions being
imposed by the federal judge in Arkansas who presided in the civil
lawsuit in which he gave the deposition that has been so much a
subject of discussion in these proceedings.

Impeachment should not be employed as the punishment for the
president. That punishment can come through the criminal court, or
through the sanctions imposed by the federal judge in Arkansas.

Also weighing against the use of the impeachment power is the
virtual certainty that the Senate would not convict the president and
remove him from office if the House of Representatives votes favorably
on articles of impeachment. A vote of two-thirds of the Senate would
be required for that action. And it is universally acknowledged that
a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict a president and remove him
from office cannot be obtained. Therefore, for the House of
Representatives to approve articles of impeachment would simply
prolong this national debate for many more months without bringing
closure, further polarizing the country and hardening the divisions
that exist in our population at the present time, diverting the
Congress and the president from attending to our urgent national
business, immobilizing the Supreme Court while the chief justice
presides over a prolonged trial in the Senate, lowering the standard
for a future presidential impeachment, and possibly causing
disruptions in the financial markets to the detriment of our national
economy.

For all of these reasons I am convinced that impeachment is not
the appropriate remedy in this case. Its use would not well serve the
national interest.

I share the public's deep disdain for the actions of the
president. And I'm truly concerned that if Congress takes no action,
many troubling unanswered questions will remain with regard to the
example that his conduct sets. A resolution of censure passed by both
houses of Congress requiring the signature of the president as an
acknowledgement of the public's rebuke of his tawdry conduct is the
preferable alternative.

Tomorrow I will offer with colleagues of like mind such a
resolution of censure for consideration by this committee. Our
congressional censure of the president for his conduct, combined with
his susceptibility to the criminal justice process and to possible
sanctions by the federal court in Arkansas, will constitute an
appropriate admonishment for his conduct, which we all disdain. It is
my hope that in the days ahead a consensus can be achieved which leads
to this sensible conclusion, if not in this committee, then on the
floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, which more than any other
approach will simultaneously acknowledge our long constitutional
history and place the nation, the Congress, and presidency on a path
toward the restoration of dignity.